Leaders Analysis
Adolf Hitler ''' Adolf Hitler (born: 20th April 1889, died: 30th April 1945) was the military leader of Nazi party of Germany. He was responsible for the death of over 6 million Jews in Europe. He was an autocrat. Some people think that Hitler was an effective leader. I actually agree with that. His persistency and stubborness has made his followers did not have a choice but to obey him. He had a clear goal and he was able to monitor his subordinates and direct his people to do the task he had asked them to do. But, there was only one-way communication. He gave orders and did not accept feedbacks from his people. For several occasions, he had a small team that he chose to help him with decision making. But actually their advices were never considered. When planning the war, he wanted to be the one creating the strategy while actualy he did not know much about military. He also refused to listen to the feedbacks from the miltary experts. This would probably be one of the reasons behind the loss of Germany. Adolf Hitler would most likely adopt the Theory X of the McGregor’s Theory X and Y. He viewed his workers as people who dislike work, will avoid responsibility and are not creative. This can be seen from him being very keen to control and monitor his people. He also wanted have the biggest role when creating an attack plan and also wanted to be the person in charge for the army. Looking at his personality, it was impossible for him to adopt a democratic style. In addition, the situation was intense and a quick decision had to be made most of the time. Due to that, Hitler’s subordinates would sometimes feel not involved. One of the strenghts of Adolf Hitler was that he had a strong determination to be the most powerful man in Germany and therefore make Germany the strongest country on Earth. After the first world war, based on the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was to pay reparations to certain European countries and they were forced to disarm. At this time, Hitler’s speeches were very influential. He told them about his vision and it has made the people motivated in the middle of the situation. But we all know that Hitler’s actions were inhuman. He took a full advantage from the high position he was in, to make people obey him without any other choice. While attacking other countries, he also killed Jews within Germany. In my opinion, what Hitler could have done better was to restrict his rule and the liberation only on Germany’s territory and make prosperity within his country. This was better than expanding the country and making new conflicts and creating new conflict within the country by killing Jews. ' ' '''Soeharto' Soeharto was Indonesia’s second president. He had been one for 32 years, until he stepped down in 1998. He would most likely view his workers as people who dislike work, will avoid responsibility and are not creative. This can be seen from him being very keen to control and monitor his people. Using this leadership style, he was able to control Indonesia and make some changes in the New Order. Most goals were successfully achieved by him, these are: reducing the illiterates, reduce the rate of unemployment, etc. One of his program called the Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun (REPELITA), was successful. We can see the people’s nationalism feeling, they use more Indonesian products and proud of Indonesia. When Soeharto was the president, many was that he achieved the unity among the differences in Indonesia. Indonesia’s economic condition was very good at that time. It was the best. Foreign investors wanted to invest in Indonesian companies. Economic growth was pretty significant every year. As a leader, I believe Soeharto had a good communication skills with the people in Indonesia. However, Soeharto has failed to actually implement democracy in Indonesia (a democratic country). He won 6 consecutive elections, and he was a part of the Golkar party. Being the president for 32 years, it seems like he was the one owning the country and that all the richest people in the country was a person from his family. His children owned the most many big companies in Indonesia. But still, there are some territories like Aceh and Papua that were actually far les developed than the other provinces, and he has failed to solve the problem. And since his presidential era, many corruption cases has started to swarm. Until now, we can see that the number of corruption cases are still increasing. In 1965, the political insurgencies causes the G30S tragedy which killed many generals in the military side, and many top-level communist being executed by the Soeharto Military Regime, and many low-ranking communist followers being exiled for many years in the remote Buru Island without being brought to justice. Later, still in the Soeharto regime, many Indonesian students who demonstrated against him in the 1974 and 1978, were arrested. Later in 1997 and 1998, there were many political abduction cases towards the students and many other demonstrants that demanded Soeharto to step down. These abduction cases were never admitted and many victims were never revealed their whereabouts even up until today. I personaly think that as a president, Soeharto has chosen the most appropriate leadership style. But he could have done better by listening to the voices of the Indone sian and the people from his cabinet. Another thing he could have done was being more generous. '''Yasser Arafat''' Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian leader. He was born in Cairo, Egypt. From 1969 to 2004, he was the chairman of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) for more than 30 years. By his own PLO friends, he was often criticized for being too autocratic. In every context, the decision was always taken by him. Every time there’s an important decision that must be made, Arafat would always make the decisions by himself eventhough his people have tried to give him advice. His orders were very straight to the point and it was pretty rude sometimes. Being someone who was very strict, he would most likely viewed his workers as people who dislike work, will avoid responsibility and are not creative. Once he said, “"I want blood," Mr Arafat said, according to a well-placed member of the security forces.” Arafat would most likely adopt the Theory X of the McGregor’s Theory X and Y. What are the strengths of Yasser Arafat which makes him a leader? His aim was actually good which is to free Palestine from Israel. By motivating many people in Israel, he was able to encourage people to join PLO organization in order to fight against the Israel. He was a good motivator and he was able to convince people of the Palestine to fight together for the same goal. He was the one who lead them. But, to do that he landed many many terrorist attacks on the Israel. He wanted revenge so he attacked Israel and has killed many Israel innocent people. People label him the ‘Father of Modern Terrorism’. What could he have done better was to pay attention to the situation and be more understanding about Israel. '''Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher was well-known as the iron lady. She was given that name by a Soviet Union Journalist. She served the longest (three terms from 1979 to 1990) as the prime minister of the United Kingdom than any prime minister. She was Authoritarian leader. As the prime minister, she had a clear direction that contributes to the socioeconomic structure of the UK. In political conditions, there are little or even no time for group decisions. So, most of the time she took the decision making responsibility without any input (or at least a little) from the people she was working with. With this, she could make decisions quickly and also efficiently. A democratic style would just slow her down. But there are some drawbacks from her way of leading. Her leadership style would make her staff that who want to participate or contribute in the decision-making unmotivated. We are able to predict how Thatcher actually viewed her workers. Workers lack of creativity, need to be controlled, need to be given a push to be able to work because they are lazy, have little desire for responsibility and prefer to be controlled or directed. As an Authoritarian leader, Thatcher would most likely adopt the Theory X of McGregor’s Theory X and Y which viewed the worker as the things I have mentioned previously. It could lead to the lack of motivation of the people around her, because maybe they feel like they actually want to contribute but then the forceful leadership style has made them think to just not contribute anything since their leader was taking the decision and the leader are not going to listen to them. Thatcher was a good debater. “I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job”. - Margaret Thatcher. (igreens.org, 2006). We know she was task-oriented, decisive, confident, determined, has strong relationship building, and she was indeed critical. But some people were probably wondering, is her leadership style the ‘best’ style? For every cases there are no ‘best’ style, but there is always the appropriate style. The forceful leadership style that Thatcher had been using was effective in handling crisis and other serious problems that requires quick-thinking and quick decisions. But for some other problems, her leadership style became less effective. This was shown when she was unwilling to listen to her cabinet, unwilling to use the strength of her cabinet. As a result, she was overthrown by her own party. Also, when she wanted to make a new system called the poll tax. The cabinet have warned her that the result would be the opposite of what she was thinking. But, she was stubborn and finally that system was applied. But, little did she know that not long after that, there are many protests from the citizens and this forced her to step down at the end of the year. I am not saying that Thatcher’s autocratic leadership style was wrong. I could see that leadership style was effective in some way. I understand that that was her way of getting things done but that is not always the appropriate style. Personally, what Thatcher could have done better was to be a more flexible leader. To apply different leadership style to in different situations. Fidel Castro Fidel Castro is a person who spent over 60 years against America. He is the leader of Cuba, and he is a leader worthy of mention. He is a leader that likes to face danger and rebels to help his country, he is very idealistic, and in a young age has already been appointed as the leader of Cuba. He is brave that he would not go down even after he has been blackmailed. He is very modest, as even when he is the ruling leader of Cuba and all the citizens respected him, and asked for his name to be one of the street names in Cuba or setting statues of him, he politely declined. He did a great part for Cuba, and that is the reason why Castro is highly respected. Books are made for him out of respect for him, calling him a ‘killing machine’. He is able to make and convince a lot of people too, much like the other leaders hat I have mentioned above. He has a leadership aura, thus why he is highly respected and is able to control people. The weakness is again, he can be a bit strict, he sometimes uses force and that may be a but uncomfortable for its citizens. What he can do to improve is be more soft, yet still possessing leadership qualities.